Precision Agriculture

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 163–177 | Cite as

Farm and Operator Characteristics Affecting the Awareness and Adoption of Precision Agriculture Technologies in the US

  • Stan G. Daberkow
  • William D. McBride


Precision agriculture (PA) technologies have been commercially available since the early 1990s. However, not only has the pace of adoption in the US been relatively modest but a surprisingly large number of producers are not familiar with these technologies. Using farm level survey data, this study quantifies the role that awareness plays in the decision to adopt PA technology and allows us to explore the potential for public or private information programs to affect the diffusion of PA. PA adoption and awareness are modeled as jointly determined dichotomous variables and their determinants are estimated using a two-stage (i.e. instrumental variable) logistic specification. The first-stage logit model indicated that operator education and computer literacy, full-time farming, and farm size positively affected the probability of PA awareness while the effect of age was negative. Grain and oilseed farms (i.e. corn, soybean, and small grains) and specialty crop farms (i.e. fruits, vegetables, and nuts) as well as farms located in the Heartland and Northern Great Plains regions were most likely to be aware of PA technologies. The second-stage PA adoption logit model, which included an instrumental variable to account for the endogeneity of awareness, revealed that farm size, full-time farming, and computer literacy positively influenced the likelihood of PA adoption. Grain and oilseed farms were the most likely types of farms to adopt PA as were farms in the Heartland region. Awareness, as defined in this study, was not found to be limiting the adoption of PA, suggesting that farmers for whom the technology is profitable are already aware of the technology and that a sector-wide public or private initiative to disseminate PA information would not likely have a major impact on PA diffusion.

precision agriculture awareness adoption jointly determined variables logit model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adesina, A. A. and Zinnah, M. M. 1993. Technology characteristics, farmers' perceptions, and adoption decisions: A tobit model application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Economics 9, 297-311.Google Scholar
  2. Bard, S. K. and Berry, P. J. 1998, November. Developing a Scale for Assessing Farmers' Risk Attitudes. Working paper. University of Illinois. Center for Farm and Rural Business Finance. Prepared for the Economic Research Service, USDA.Google Scholar
  3. Barry, P. J., Ellinger, P. N., Hopkins, J. A. and Baker, C. B. 1995. Financial Management in Agriculture, 5th edn. (Interstate Publishers, Inc., Danville, IL, USA).Google Scholar
  4. Batte, M. and Johnson, R. 1993. Technology and its impact on American agriculture. In: Size, Structure, and the Changing Face of American Agriculture, edited by A. Hallum (Westview Press Inc., Boulder, CO, USA).Google Scholar
  5. Beale, G. and Bolen, J. 1955. How Farm People Accept New Ideas. Cooperative Extension Report No. 15, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Bultena, G. L. and Hoiberg, E. O. 1983. Factors affecting farmers' adoption of conservation tillage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38(3), 281-283.Google Scholar
  7. Cowan, T. 2000. Precision agriculture and site-specific management: Current status and emerging policy issues, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress RL30630 (Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, USA).Google Scholar
  8. Daberkow, S. G. and McBride, W. D. 1998. Socio-economic profiles of early adopters of precision agriculture technologies. Journal of Agribusiness 16(2), 151-168.Google Scholar
  9. Daberkow, S. G. and McBride, W. D. 2000. Adoption of precision agriculture technologies by U.S. farmers. In: Proceeding (on CD) of the 5th International Conference on Precision Agriculture, edited by P. C. Robert, R. H. Rust and W. E. Larson (ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI, USA).Google Scholar
  10. Dubman, R. W. 2000, April. Variance Estimation with USDA's Farm Costs and Return Surveys and Agricultural Resource Management Study Surveys. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. ERS Staff Paper AGES 00-01.Google Scholar
  11. El-Osta, H. and Morehart, M. 1999. Technology adoption decisions in dairy production and the role of herd expansion. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28(1), 84-95.Google Scholar
  12. Feder, G. and Umali, D. L. 1993. The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43, 215-239.Google Scholar
  13. Feder, G. and O'Mara, G. 1981. Farm size and the diffusion of green revolution technology. Economic Development and Cultural Change 30, 59-76.Google Scholar
  14. Feder, G. and O'Mara, G. 1982. On information and innovation diffusion: A Bayesian approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64, 145-147.Google Scholar
  15. Feder, G., Just, R. J. and Zilberman, D. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(2), 255-298.Google Scholar
  16. Feder, G. and Slade, R. 1984. The acquisition of information and the adoption of new technology. Journal of American Agricultural Economics Association 66(3), 312-320.Google Scholar
  17. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Beach, E. D. and Huang, W.-Y. 1994. The adoption of IPM techniques by vegetable growers in Florida, Michigan, and Texas. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 26, 158-172.Google Scholar
  18. Gould, B. W., Saupe, W. E. and Klemme, R. M. 1989. Conservation tillage: The role of farm and operator characteristics and the perception of soil erosion. Land Economics 65, 167-182.Google Scholar
  19. Green, G., Sunding, D., Zilberman, D. and Parker, D. 1996. Explaining irrigation technology choices: A microparameter approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78, 1064-1072.Google Scholar
  20. Heckman, J. J. 1976. The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection, and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5, 475-491.Google Scholar
  21. Hiebert, L. D. 1974. Risk, learning, and the adoption of fertilizer responsive seed varieties. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56, 764-768.Google Scholar
  22. Hoppe, R., Perry, J. and Banker, D. 1999. The ERS farm typology: Classifying a diverse ag sector. Agricultural Outlook, (November) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Just, R., Zilberman, D. and Rausser, G. 1980. A putty-clay approach to the distributional effects of new technology under risk. In: Operations Research in Agriculture and Water Resources, edited by D. Yaron and C. Tapiero (North Holland Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA).Google Scholar
  24. Khanna, M., Epough, O. F. and Hornbaker, R. 1999. Site-specific crop management: Adoption patterns and incentives. Review of Agricultural Economics 21(2), 455-472.Google Scholar
  25. Khanna, M. and Zilberman, D. 1997. Incentives, precision technology, and environmental protection. Ecological Economics 23, 25-43.Google Scholar
  26. Klotz, C., Saha, A. and Butler, L. J. 1995. The role of information in technology adoption: The case of rbST in the California dairy industry. Review of Agricultural Economics 17, 287-298.Google Scholar
  27. Lambert, D. and Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. 2000. Precision Agriculture Profitability Review., September, 15, 2000, Site-specific Management Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. and Swinton, S. 1997. Economics of site-specific management in agronomic crops. In: The State of Site-Specific Management for Agriculture, edited by F. Pierce and E. Sadler (ASA Misc. Pub.:369-396. ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI, USA).Google Scholar
  29. Lynne, G. D., Shonkwiler, J. S. and Rola, L. R. 1988. Attitudes and farmer conservation behavior. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 12-19.Google Scholar
  30. Maddala, G. S. 1992. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics (Cambridge University Press, UK).Google Scholar
  31. Mansfield, C. 1966. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation (Norton, New York, NY, USA).Google Scholar
  32. McBride, W. D., Daberkow, S. G. and Christensen, L. A. 1999. Attitudes about precision agriculture innovations among U.S. corn growers. In: Precision Agriculture '99: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Part 2, edited by J. V. Stafford (Sheffield Academic Press, UK), pp. 927-936.Google Scholar
  33. McNamara, K. T., Wetzstein, M. E. and Douce, G. K. 1991. Factors affecting peanut producer adoption of integrated pest management. Review of Agricultural Economics 13 129-139.Google Scholar
  34. Morgenstern, R. D. 1996. Does the provision of free technical information really influence firm behavior. Discussion Paper 96-16 (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA).Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council (NRC). 1997. Precision Agriculture in the 21st Century: Geospatial Technologies in Crop Management (NRC National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA).Google Scholar
  36. Norris, P. E. and Batie, S. S. 1987. Virginia farmers' soil conservation decisions: An application of Tobit analysis. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 19, 79-90.Google Scholar
  37. Nowak, P. and Korsching, P. 1998. The human dimension of soil and water conservation: A historical and methodological perspective. In: Advances in Soil and Water Conservation, edited by F. J. Pierce and W. W. Frye (Sleeping Bear Press and Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI, USA).Google Scholar
  38. Pierce, F. and Nowak, P. 1999. Aspects of precision agriculture, Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 67 (Academic Press, New York, NY, USA).Google Scholar
  39. Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. (Free Press, New York, NY, USA).Google Scholar
  40. Ryan, J. T. 1999. Farm operators' utilization of debt repayment capacity: A leading indicator of farm financial stress. In: Financing Agriculture and Rural America: Issues of Policy, Structure, and Technical Change. Proceedings of Regional Committee NC-221, edited by S. H. Lence (Department of Economics, College of Agriculture, Iowa State University, USA), pp. 175-185.Google Scholar
  41. Thrikawala, S., Weersink, A., Kachanoski, G. and Fox, G. 1999. Economic feasibility of variable-rate technology for nitrogen on corn. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81, 914-927.Google Scholar
  42. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 2000. Acreage. Report Cr Pr 2–5, June 30, 2000 (National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC, USA).Google Scholar
  43. Wolf, S. and Nowak, P. 1995. Development of information intensive agri-chemical management services in Wisconsin. Environmental Management 19(3), 371-382.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stan G. Daberkow
    • 1
  • William D. McBride
    • 1
  1. 1.Economic Research Service, US department of AgricultureWashington, DC

Personalised recommendations